al-Khilafa al-Umawiya min Kitab al-Akhbar al-Tiwal al-Mansub lil-Dinawari
- Author died
- -
- Editions
- Dar al-Jami'ah - Saudi Arabia
Al-Khilafa al-Umawiya min Kitab al-Akhbar al-Tiwal al-Mansub lil-Dinawari: Dirasa Naqdiya Muqarana (The Umayyad Caliphate from the Book al-Akhbar al-Tiwal Attributed to al-Dinawari: A Critical Comparative Study) is a modern historical study by Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah al-Buraydi analyzing the narratives of the Umayyad era in al-Akhbar al-Tiwal and examining its attribution to Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari .
Background and Purpose
The book originated as a Master's thesis in history submitted to the Department of History in the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Umm al-Qura University in Mecca, supervised by Dr. Abd al-Aziz al-Sallumi . It was successfully defended on 13 Jumada al-Akhirah 1440 AH and passed with an excellent grade (mumtaz) .
Al-Buraydi sought to provide a critical and comparative reassessment of the historical reports concerning the Umayyad Caliphate preserved in al-Akhbar al-Tiwal . Noting the divergence among historians regarding the Umayyad period and the prevalence of hostile or sectarian narratives, the study examines the reliability of the book's accounts to avoid misjudging early Islamic figures and events .
Critique of Attribution
A central focus of the work is challenging the attribution of al-Akhbar al-Tiwal to Abu Hanifa Ahmad ibn Dawud al-Dinawari (d. 282 AH) . Al-Buraydi presents several lines of evidence arguing that the work is pseudepigraphic and was falsely ascribed to him:
- Biographical Discrepancies: Classical biographers and contemporaries who chronicled al-Dinawari—such as Ibn Hawqal (d. 367 AH), Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, and Abu Ya'la al-Khalili (d. 446 AH)—praised his scholarship in botany, language, and astronomy without attributing al-Akhbar al-Tiwal to him or describing him as an akhbari (historian) . Jurists and traditionists such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Qutlubugha deemed al-Dinawari trustworthy (saduq) and counted him among notable figures and Hadith scholars, which contradicts the contentious contents and superstitions found in al-Akhbar al-Tiwal .
- Transmission and Scarcity of Early Citations: Ibn al-Nadim in Kitab al-Fihrist was the first recorded author to attribute al-Akhbar al-Tiwal to al-Dinawari, followed later by Yaqut al-Hamawi and Ibn al-Qifti . The book remained largely absent from subsequent citations until al-Qazwini (d. 623 AH) quoted it in al-Tadwin fi Akhbar Qazwin .
- Methodological and Stylistic Divergence: Al-Buraydi contrasts the methodology of al-Akhbar al-Tiwal with al-Dinawari's verified work Kitab al-Nabat (The Book of Plants) . In Kitab al-Nabat, al-Dinawari directly attributes statements to specific named sources (such as Abu Amr or Abu Ziyad), compares differing views, evaluates opinions, and identifies poetic meters . Conversely, al-Akhbar al-Tiwal frequently relies on the generic passive formula qalu ("they said"), relies on single narratives without weighing variants, contains frequent historical confusion and chronological errors, and omits poetic meters .
- Textual Preservation: While authentic works of al-Dinawari were largely lost—with only partial sections of Kitab al-Nabat and excerpts from Kitab al-Anwa' surviving—al-Akhbar al-Tiwal uniquely survived in its entirety despite its lack of early fame .
- Doctrinal Inclination: The text reflects Shi'i doctrinal themes and concerns, leading al-Buraydi to conclude that the actual author was an anonymous Shi'i writer rather than the Sunnite-Hanafi scholar Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari . Furthermore, the absence of any direct formulas of audition (such as haddathana or akhbarana) leaves the precise identity and dates of the actual author undetermined .
Method and Content
The book isolates the section of al-Akhbar al-Tiwal covering the Umayyad dynasty, systematically examining its historical claims against standard historical works and Hadith sources . Al-Buraydi evaluates the narrative structures, identifying points where the author diverged from mainstream historical reports, favored specific partisan interpretations, or introduced chronological inversions .
Answer updated